Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Has Corbyn dumbed down the Labour Party by purging Oxbridge grads? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand why there is this hate for Oxbridge politicians. Attlee, Wilson, Blair all went to Oxbridge. Three out of the five labour prime ministers democratically elected went to Oxbridge.

    Nobody accused them to be "out of touch".

    This idea of the Oxbridge politician being a toff is some ploy used by the rabid leftwingers to make the Tories and New Labour look bad.

    The thing is that whilst the Tory frontbench are stinkingly rich, the Labour frontbench pre-Corbyn were just... rich...


    You don't have to go through a situation in order to understand it. You don't need to be a woman, in order to understand woman's problems. You need to be sensitive and empathetic.

    I'd much rather have an Oxbridge toffs running the country, than a London Met dropout.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    It is you who is making a fool of yourself on this matter. And you who are unale to defend your position.

    I'll give you another chance.

    Did you say that you have to be extremely wealthy to attend Eton?

    This is a binary question, and I'd like a binary answer. Yes or no?

    Do you now accept that you can come from a poor family and attend the school?

    Binary again, yes or no?

    Every single person on this thread knows that your position has crumbled to dust and you haven't been able to defend it. That the answers are yes and yes.
    Even YOU know this.
    Yes, you are correct, a poor pupil may enter Eton. A poor person within a sea of wealth.

    But you are incorrect to compare the elitism attached to Eton and make it comparable to the elitism attached to Oxbridge. This was my point in saying that one must be very wealthy to attend Eton (which for all sense and purpose is true, since the number of bursaries going to poor children are so small), whereas Oxbridge does not have this same explicit wealth barrier (though of course indirect barriers exist)

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    I am still waiting for the answer to my other question. Were you lying or ignorant when you made that statement?
    As I am waiting for you to respond to the substantive parts of my large number of posts that you have chosen to run away from, and chosen to latch onto a non-point that a tiny number of poor people may go to Eton.

    Just ignoring the bits of my posts you don't want to answer, won't make them go away.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    This is the position the OP is trying to take
    I'm not responsible for the OP's position, I was making my own interjection.

    And the relevant distinction is that, while one may not be able to characterise Eton as being "open to the poor", it would be apt to say that not everyone who goes to Eton has rich parents.

    And in any case, there is no basis in logic or morality to assign blame to a person based on where their parents sent them to school. What matters is what they do after.

    Good night.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    I'm not responsible for the OP's position, I was making my own interjection.

    And the relevant distinction is that, while one may not be able to characterise Eton as being "open to the poor", it would be apt to say that not everyone who goes to Eton has rich parents.

    And in any case, there is no basis in logic or morality to assign blame to a person based on where their parents sent them to school. What matters is what they do after.

    Good night.
    I quite agree. However the OP has placed value on an individual who attended Eton, and this position needs to be strongly rebuffed
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Yes, you are correct, a poor pupil may enter Eton.
    So all in all it was pretty stupid of you to say that they couldn't. Don't you agree?
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    As I am waiting for you to respond to the substantive parts of my large number of
    posts that you have chosen to run away from.
    You don't seem to get this whole internet thing do you? You have no right to expect an answer from me or anyone else to anything you say. We reply if we choose to.

    And obviously the low hanging fruit comes first. There is absolutely nothing you have EVER written in any post to me that I can't respond to. Don't flatter yourself.

    But you have made an incredible number of separate points because you are such a pedantic (rhymes with lick) and there are time constraints. Unlike you I am logging off to have a nice evening with friends.

    Clearly you will therefore say I am "running away." But who cares? .

    Don't worry you will get plenty more posts from me. I enjoy "debating" with you. I find it "amusing."
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    He is a Saudi citizen.

    It was politically naive. If you think supporting (perhaps ex) Jihadis will go down well with those outside his core support you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

    Wait till this terrorist (sorry charity worker ) gets his huge compensation payout and see how that affects public opinion, especially potential Labour voters.

    Oh and wait till the Tory press gets to work! The narrative is that he is soft on terror, supports Hamas and Hezbollah and is weak on defence by opposing Trident.

    What you don't in the face of that narrative is let your team send tweets like that. That would be stupid, oh wait, isn't that my entire thesis!
    Fine, British Resident then.

    The man was held without trial for fourteen years and the Bush administration said they had no evidence against him. That is called a miscarriage of justice, not even going into the beatings and the fact that most of his time was in solitary confinement. Given the UK government has been campaigning for his release for years, I can see the headlines "Corbyn celebrates success of something the government wanted."

    Given what the press has reported about Corbyn has had little to no resemblence to what he actually said, I'd say that gives him Carte Blance to say pretty much whatever he wants as the press will **** him off regardless.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    Fine, British Resident then.

    The man was held without trial for fourteen years and the Bush administration said they had no evidence against him. That is called a miscarriage of justice, not even going into the beatings and the fact that most of his time was in solitary confinement. Given the UK government has been campaigning for his release for years, I can see the headlines "Corbyn celebrates success of something the government wanted."

    Given what the press has reported about Corbyn has had little to no resemblence to what he actually said, I'd say that gives him Carte Blance to say pretty much whatever he wants as the press will **** him off regardless.
    He was held as an enemy combatant. POWs in Colditz didn't get a trial either.

    What do you think he was doing in Tora Bora with Bin
    Laden? Organising charity raffles?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    He was held as an enemy combatant. POWs in Colditz didn't get a trial either.

    What do you think he was doing in Tora Bora with Bin
    Laden? Organising charity raffles?
    Except that confession is a) only alleged and b) came out of Guantanamo Bay and given the methods there they could get make a dog confess to being a cat. Bush Administration admitted it had no evidence to hold him.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    So all in all it was pretty stupid of you to say that they couldn't. Don't you agree?
    In the context of you putting elitism of attending Oxbridge on par with attending Eton, no.

    There are no (or at least far less) direct financial barriers to attending Oxbridge, therefore there can be an element of fair reason for elitism around those who have attended it gaining advantage in society.

    Eton is a fee-paying independent school, which for the most part is the preserve of the very wealthy. The existence of a tiny number of poor people who may go there on a bursary does not detract from this fact. Therefore any hint of elitism around those who have attended it gaining advantage in society would be considered unjust given the financial privileged the vast majority of attendees would have come from. My point regarding the non-comparability of Oxbridge and Eton elitism stands irrespective of the existence of a small number of poor students there or no. And this point is immaterial to the core issue of this thread.

    Your fixation on existence of a small number of poor pupils on bursaries as something that undermines my position that financial privilege and Eton go hand in hand is just ludicrous and reflects how desperately clutching at straws you are and how obviously stuck in a corner you are. It would be as silly as people discussing social immobility, with somebody believing the poor have it stacked against them and saying "if you are born poor, you are always going to have to work just that bit harder to succeed and be rich later in life", and then another person deflecting the whole discussion to saying over and over "but if they won the lottery, this wouldn't be true".

    You on the other hand, opened this thread saying that Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet was made up almost exclusively of graduates of red-brick universities, not Oxbridge, and therefore went on to question his and his colleagues suitability in being able to hypothetically lead the country. Therefore, the whole premise of your criticism laid on this Oxbridge claim being true. And it wasn't true, at all, since 30% of Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet are Oxbridge graduates. Hence your entire position and reason etre for creating the thread collapses, and you are left looking ridiculous throughout as well shown to be as a deceitful liar trying to smear somebody you don't like.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    You don't seem to get this whole internet thing do you? You have no right to expect an answer from me or anyone else to anything you say. We reply if we choose to.
    Choosing not to reply to a point in a debate reflects failure on the part of the one who does not reply. This applies to both the internet in and person.

    Of course I have no right to expect you to answer, but you lack of response indicates defeat by all measures of debate.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    And obviously the low hanging fruit comes first.
    Firstly, I'm flattered that of the large amount of my material on this thread, the low hanging fruit are a non-point and an issue you trawled back through thousands of my posts to something written 2 years ago. This shows how high the tree is and by implication the soundness of my position. It's also unfortunately for you that you that neither of these "low hanging fruit" have been able to be turned by you into something that negates my position, indeed they only go on further to affirm my position.

    Secondly, am glad of your use of the word "first", since it implies you will eventually come round to replying to my other posts, and all these hints of running away are just you teasing.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    There is absolutely nothing you have EVER written in any post to me that I can't respond to.
    Then prove it. Oh wait, you can't, and you are just going to run away and say how little time you have: in spite of having time to trawl through thousands of posts in somebody's post history to try (yet fail) to deflect the fact you are getting totally roasted. It's all very convincing isn't it.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    But you have made an incredible number of separate points
    Reflecting the incredible number of errors in your posts.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    because you are such a pedantic (rhymes with lick)
    When the ad hominems come out, it's clear who's won.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    and there are time constraints.
    Of course there are.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Unlike you I am logging off to have a nice evening with friends.
    Enjoy

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Clearly you will therefore say I am "running away." But who cares? .

    Don't worry you will get plenty more posts from me. I enjoy "debating" with you. I find it "amusing."
    To make it easy for you, let's summarise what you need to cover

    1. You claimed that the almost exclusively red-brick/non-Oxbridge nature of Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet raised questions about his suitability to hypothetically govern the nation. Given it is 30% (an anomaly from what you wrote, which you say is down to "rhetorical exaggeration"), does this mean that a 30% Oxbridge educated Shadow Cabinet is too low, and if so, what would a suitable proportion be?

    2. In spite of UKIP's shadow cabinet having only 4 Oxbridge graduates (17%), you claimed it should not be judged by the same standards as you judge Corbyn's shadow cabinet, because UKIP are not expected to be forming a government. You reject the charge therefore that UKIP are not a serious party. How do you therefore explain Nick Clegg's shadow cabinet up to 2010 having 12 Oxbridge graduates (41%), even though the Liberal Democrats did not expect to be forming a government anytime soon?

    3. You have repeatedly alluded to Jeremy Corbyn being stupid. Your only supporting "evidence" for this is that he got 2 Es at ALevel, went to a polytechnic, is dry at the dispatch box, and Martin Amis says he is stupid. Given none of these are proof of someone's stupidity, what is your evidence of Corbyn's alleged stupidity?

    5. Do you think politics operates better when the public discussion is around issues and values, or when it operates around individual personalities and spin?

    6. Is it wrong for a British politician in opposition to publicly raise a concern for the impending execution by beheading and crucifixion of Saudi dissident charged with organising pro-democracy protests?

    7. Do you uphold the principles of the rule of law, and the prohibition of torture?

    See, this is spoon-feeding for you, and I even let you go on the fact you failed to notice the age difference between Thatcher/Benn/Lawson/Jenkins/Foot and Mr Corbyn, that you don't know how ministerial appointments work, and that you don't know your logical fallacies. No doubt you will come back whining about how somebody else has too much time, or how you want to deflect the debate to another unrelated topic. Would be more interesting if you focused on the above 7 points (cue whining that "you have no right to expect me to respond to anything, bla bla bla").
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    He was held as an enemy combatant. POWs in Colditz didn't get a trial either.
    Except military officials in the US admit they have no evidence on him

    (Original post by generallee)
    What do you think he was doing in Tora Bora with Bin
    Laden? Organising charity raffles?
    But the only "evidence" of his presence in Tora Bora are confessions obtained under torture, which are rightly dismissed as not evidence.

    Don't get me wrong, he, like Moazzam Begg, probably holds loathesome views, and could well become a corrupting force within the UK, but there is no evidence to support him committing any crime, and therefore, by the rule of law, he cannot be detained or imprisoned (and his torture, as colluded by British officials, was unlawful for which he rightly deserves compensation). Also bear in mind that Majid Nawaz once upon a time found himself in a very similar situation (brainwashed with Islamic fundamentalist views, falling foul of political oppression whilst abroad, tortured in prison, but eventually came home to the UK). He is now one of the most articulate and sensible spokespeople on the subject of Islamic fundamentalism, and is one of the few people to be able to hold his own and convey the liberal message when faced with Islamic extremists in debates.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    In the context of you putting elitism of attending Oxbridge on par with attending Eton, no.
    That is a distortion of my view. There are clearly great differences between Eton and Oxbridge, (I didn't say there weren't) and as it happens I too am troubled with the great divide the Public Schools create in our society, through our education system.

    (It is a difficult matter to address, however. Denying parents the right to educate their children in a way not provided by the state is too big a denial of liberty for me).

    My point was simply that a educational divide predicated on wealth doesn't make inverted snobbery right either and that I contend, is the basis of much of the criticism of both institutions.

    Now that is my view, that there is an inverted snobbery towards both Eton and Oxbridge, you may or may not agree with it, but you failed to grasp that that was the point I had made, and didn't address it then and haven't in this latest post.

    I also said that Cameron (unlike Boris) is criticised unfairly for being sent to a particular school, when he had little choice in the matter. You agreed with another poster that this was unreasonable in principle, so you agree with me on Cameron's case too, I assume.
    .

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    There are no (or at least far less) direct financial barriers to attending Oxbridge, therefore there can be an element of fair reason for elitism around those who have attended it gaining advantage in society.
    That is true. I would go further, there is positive discrimination towards State School Applicants against theproducts of schools such as Eton at both Oxford and Cambridge.
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Eton is a fee-paying independent school, which for the most part is the preserve of the very wealthy. The existence of a tiny number of poor people who may go there on a bursary does not detract from this fact. Therefore any hint of elitism around those who have attended it gaining advantage in society would be considered unjust given the financial privileged the vast majority of attendees would have come from. My point regarding the non-comparability of Oxbridge and Eton elitism stands irrespective of the existence of a small number of poor students there or no. And this point is immaterial to the core issue of this thread.
    I don't disagree, as you will have noticed above, I actually share your criticism of the independent sector in principle, whilst accepting it as a reality in practice. I am a meritocrat. This little exchange was simply to gain your admission, through gritted teeth, and after about five exchanges. that what you had said was not "strictly true." It was a pleasure to demonstrate that you had been talking out of your rear end, I am ashamed to say. Your puerile debating tactics are rubbing off on me I am afraid.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    You on the other hand, opened this thread saying that Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet was made up almost exclusively of graduates of red-brick universities, not Oxbridge, and therefore went on to question his and his colleagues suitability in being able to hypothetically lead the country. Therefore, the whole premise of your criticism laid on this Oxbridge claim being true. And it wasn't true, at all, since 30% of Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet are Oxbridge graduates. Hence your entire position and reason etre for creating the thread collapses, and you are left looking ridiculous throughout as well shown to be as a deceitful liar trying to smear somebody you don't like.
    Calling someone (in this case me ) a "deceitful liar" on a website such as this is inherently cowardly. You wouldn't dare say it to my face, and if you were so unwise to do so would find your own face rearranged in short order.

    But coming to the substance of your criticism it merely reveals your political ignorance. You are correct to point to the number of Oxbridge graduates in the current Shadow Cabinet (how would you put it? oh, yes it is "strictly true") but that doesn't invalidate my point. Which was (is) that Corbyn IS dumbing down the Labour Party, that is his direction of travel.

    His new Director of Strategy, Seamus Milne let the cat out of the bag in an interview on Russia Today (source the Guido Fawkes website if you want confirmation):

    “… There will be some shake-up in the existing Shadow Cabinet – this is a kind of stabilisation Shadow Cabinet… There are a whole lot of progressive people who came in in the May election, young MPs who are fully supportive of Corbyn. The Tories are planning to bring in new boundaries for constituencies around the country and that will mean there will have to be reselections.”

    So who will the new Shadow Cabinet be? The popular Labour website has been speculating...

    http://labourlist.org/2015/10/are-th...t-of-tomorrow/

    You like doing research so knock yourself out. You will find graduates of Bradford, Manchester Met and the University of East London. The rest red brick or worse with one exception.

    You have displayed a lot of naivety on this thread. If you seriously think, that most of his current Shadow Cabinet think he is anything but a joke or worse, you give yet another instance of it.



    (Original post by Rat_Bag)

    Choosing not to reply to a point in a debate reflects failure on the part of the one who does not reply. This applies to both the internet in and person.
    Whatever, yawn. I am replying in full to your latest post, am I not?

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Of course I have no right to expect you to answer, but you lack of response indicates defeat by all measures of debate.
    No, it just means that you have made dozens of post solely addressed to me, you parse every single sentence I ever utter, and it would take hours to respond to everything. Life's too short!


    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Firstly, I'm flattered that of the large amount of my material on this thread, the low hanging fruit are a non-point and an issue you trawled back through thousands of my posts to something written 2 years ago. This shows how high the tree is and by implication the soundness of my position. It's also unfortunately for you that you that neither of these "low hanging fruit" have been able to be turned by you into something that negates my position, indeed they only go on further to affirm my position.
    First, the word "firstly" is incorrect.

    To your point I didn't trawl through "thousands of posts" (thank God!) the offending post (which you have still not apologised for by the way, why not?) was in the only thread I looked at and it took me about five minutes to find at most. That begs the question of how much offensive stuff there must be in those thousands of posts, if I could find such a dreadful one so quickly.

    And it was to the point. You accused me of intellectual snobbery (which unlike you I have admitted). I demonstrated you were a snob too. But a worse one.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Secondly, am glad of your use of the word "first", since it implies you will eventually come round to replying to my other posts, and all these hints of running away are just you teasing.
    Don't get your hopes up. I do sometimes toy with the idea of going back and addressing all of your inanities and pointing out things like your extraordinary lack of culture, and logical inconsistencies. (Not knowing that Socrates and Plato were two different people? Really?)

    But I have decided that this will be my last response to you on this particular thread. It just takes so long! Of course I reserve the right to change my mind, but that's how I feel right now.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Then prove it. Oh wait, you can't, and you are just going to run away and say how little time you have: in spite of having time to trawl through thousands of posts in somebody's post history to try (yet fail) to deflect the fact you are getting totally roasted. It's all very convincing isn't it.
    That isn't for either of us to judge, I leave others who are reading this (if there are any!) to decide that. Obviously if you want to set up your own little judge and jury to convict me of "failing" you can but it won't have any jurisdiction outside your own shower cubicle.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)




    When the ad hominems come out, it's clear who's won.
    We have both made ad hominems. I admit this, you (because you are intellectually dishonest) of course do not.

    My ad hominems come from sheer frustration. You are without doubt the most IRRITATING person I have ever debated with online. (I have dealt with worse in person admittedly)



    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Enjoy
    I did.
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)

    1. You claimed that the almost exclusively red-brick/non-Oxbridge nature of Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet raised questions about his suitability to hypothetically govern the nation. Given it is 30% (an anomaly from what you wrote, which you say is down to "rhetorical exaggeration", does this mean that a 30% Oxbridge educated Shadow Cabinet is too low, and if so, what would a suitable proportion be?
    Don't be ridiculous, there is no "suitable proportion" of Shadow Cabinet members educated at Oxbridge.

    The point that my "rhetorical exaggeration" was de facto if not de jure true was made above. Please refer.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    2. In spite of UKIP's shadow cabinet having only 4 Oxbridge graduates (17%), you claimed it should not be judged by the same standards as you judge Corbyn's shadow cabinet, because UKIP are not expected to be forming a government. You reject the charge therefore that UKIP are not a serious party. How do you therefore explain Nick Clegg's shadow cabinet up to 2010 having 12 Oxbridge graduates (41%), even though the Liberal Democrats did not expect to be forming a government anytime soon?
    Here you are unwittingly supporting my contention that a good proportion of Oxbridge graduates makes a party a serious party of government (as the Lib Dems were in the Coalition). Unlike the Corbyn Labour Party which has substantially less, it is going to be even fewer after the purge, and most of the current SC don't even support Corbyn.

    I never said UKIP were a serious party of Government. In fact their lack of high calibre Oxbridge graduates is one reason (but not the only one).

    Why you are arguing against your own premises here, I have no idea.
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    3. You have repeatedly alluded to Jeremy Corbyn being stupid. Your only supporting "evidence" for this is that he got 2 Es at ALevel, went to a polytechnic, is dry at the dispatch box, and Martin Amis says he is stupid. Given none of these are proof of someone's stupidity, what is your evidence of Corbyn's alleged stupidity?
    Yes I do, he is in terms of the intellect required to be Prime Minister. I think this because I have read his speeches and heard him debate. I suspect you secretly share my view but can't admit it. (By your lights he is "trash" You certainly agree that he would "severely damage" the country.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    5. Do you think politics operates better when the public discussion is around issues and values, or when it operates around individual personalities and spin?
    I don't think the question is valid since the choice isn't available. Politics has always been about individual personalities and "spin" although it wasn't termed that until recently, and an age old practice now has modern techniques.

    You claimed that other democracies "operate" their politics around issues and values, but provided no evidence.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    6. Is it wrong for a British politician in opposition to publicly raise a concern for the impending execution by beheading and crucifixion of Saudi dissident charged with organising pro-democracy protests?
    In principle no. It is how you do it. The Foreign Office should (and does) raise these concerns in private. Public grandstanding, as Corbyn did it, is not only ineffective in persuading the Saudis to change policy, it also imperils British exports. This demonstrated Corbyn's inexperience and unfitness for high office but above all also his stupidity.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    7. Do you uphold the principles of the rule of law, and the prohibition of torture?
    Yes
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    See, this is spoon-feeding for you,
    That was good of you
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    and I even let you go on the fact you failed to notice the age difference between Thatcher/Benn/Lawson/Jenkins/Foot and Mr Corbyn,
    I did, it was hard not to
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    that you don't know how

    ministerial appointments work,
    I do. Prime Ministers appoint all Cabinets (not SC's, for Labour's impending changes see above) which is why having someone as poor in judgement as Corbyn would be a disaster.

    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    and that you don't know your logical fallacies.
    I know your logical fallacies!
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    No doubt you will come back whining about how somebody else has too much time, or how you want to deflect the debate to another unrelated topic. Would be more interesting if you focused on the above 7 points (cue whining that "you have no right to expect me to respond to anything, bla bla bla".
    I just replied to every single substantive point you made.. If I missed something it was inadvertent, in any case that's your lot.

    That's it though. I have no doubt you will spend hours crafting a response. Hopefully everyone else will enjoy reading it, I won't bother.

    Take care, no doubt we will meet on TSR again.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)



    Then prove it. Oh wait, you can't, and you are just going to run away and say how little time you have: in spite of having time to trawl through thousands of posts in somebody's post history to try (yet fail) to deflect the fact you are getting totally roasted. It's all very convincing isn't it.


    .
    One last point before I go and enjoy what's left of my Saturday.

    Obviously because you employ the argumentum ad infinitum strategy, you will declare victory and go on (and on!) about me running away ya de ya.

    I leave others to assess the veracity of all that, but of course in that shower cubicle of yours you'll be lathering the old rat bag arm pits and declaring victory because I have decided to call a halt.

    But you have to respond in full to that last post. Every single point addressed as I did you.

    I am not going to read it of course, but that isn't the point. Others on this thread will.

    Go ahead, have the last word. In fact I insist on it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    Except that confession is a) only alleged and b) came out of Guantanamo Bay and given the methods there they could get make a dog confess to being a cat. Bush Administration admitted it had no evidence to hold him.
    What was he doing in Afganistan?

    The "charities" he claimed to working for were fronts for Al Q. In Gitmo all the other prisoners accepted him as their "Emir" ( leader).

    Want him "back" here all you like, that is your right, but don't kid yourself he wasn't a terrorist.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Except military officials in the US admit they have no evidence on him



    But the only "evidence" of his presence in Tora Bora are confessions obtained under torture, which are rightly dismissed as not evidence.

    Don't get me wrong, he, like Moazzam Begg, probably holds loathesome views, and could well become a corrupting force within the UK, but there is no evidence to support him committing any crime, and therefore, by the rule of law, he cannot be detained or imprisoned (and his torture, as colluded by British officials, was unlawful for which he rightly deserves compensation). Also bear in mind that Majid Nawaz once upon a time found himself in a very similar situation (brainwashed with Islamic fundamentalist views, falling foul of political oppression whilst abroad, tortured in prison, but eventually came home to the UK). He is now one of the most articulate and sensible spokespeople on the subject of Islamic fundamentalism, and is one of the few people to be able to hold his own and convey the liberal message when faced with Islamic extremists in debates.
    You make some very good points.

    My worry, though, is that he will continue to further the Islamist cause whilst in the UK and that the huge payout he receives, (a million pounds?) will go to Al Q or IS.

    The taxpayer funding organisations that seek to destroy us.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    You make some very good points.

    My worry, though, is that he will continue to further the Islamist cause whilst in the UK and that the huge payout he receives, (a million pounds?) will go to Al Q or IS.

    The taxpayer funding organisations that seek to destroy us.
    Firstly, one million pounds is small change to IS, which raises millions of pounds each day through the sale of oil, plunder of state and private assets, trade in antiquities, and racketeering. I don't know about AQ's finances

    Secondly, if he does use the payout (which he deserved to receive by the way) to finance these organisations (which are listed as terrorist organisations), then he will be tried and imprisoned. Since it is absolutely certain that he will face comprehensive surveillance whilst in the UK (the circumstantial evidence of his past involvement in terrorist activities is strong, so there will a desire to identify substantive evidence for any continued activity that could be used in a trial), his financial transactions will be closely monitored and scrutinised for indications of money laundering to IS or AQ.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    That is a distortion of my view. There are clearly great differences between Eton and Oxbridge, (I didn't say there weren't) and as it happens I too am troubled with the great divide the Public Schools create in our society, through our education system.
    You made a comparison of elitism attached to Oxbridge and made an argument of equivalence of elitism attached to Eton. It's wrong to do so because of very different circumstances of access to Oxbridge and Eton.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    (It is a difficult matter to address, however. Denying parents the right to educate their children in a way not provided by the state is too big a denial of liberty for me).
    I agree.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    My point was simply that a educational divide predicated on wealth doesn't make inverted snobbery right either and that I contend, is the basis of much of the criticism of both institutions.
    Indeed, but you compared these institutions as if the grounds for elitism attached to them were comparable, which they are not.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Now that is my view, that there is an inverted snobbery towards both Eton and Oxbridge, you may or may not agree with it, but you failed to grasp that that was the point I had made, and didn't address it then and haven't in this latest post.
    I agree there is and I don't like it.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    I also said that Cameron (unlike Boris) is criticised unfairly for being sent to a particular school, when he had little choice in the matter. You agreed with another poster that this was unreasonable in principle, so you agree with me on Cameron's case too, I assume.
    Yes.
    .
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    That is true. I would go further, there is positive discrimination towards State School Applicants against theproducts of schools such as Eton at both Oxford and Cambridge.
    It may be a form of discrimination in its most literal sense, but I would say assessment of ability appropriate to circumstance would be more accurate.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    I don't disagree, as you will have noticed above, I actually share your criticism of the independent sector in principle, whilst accepting it as a reality in practice. I am a meritocrat. This little exchange was simply to gain your admission, through gritted teeth, and after about five exchanges. that what you had said was not "strictly true." It was a pleasure to demonstrate that you had been talking out of your rear end, I am ashamed to say. Your puerile debating tactics are rubbing off on me I am afraid.
    My concern in this point was less to do with the negative externalities of independent fee-paying schools, but more to do with the suggestion of comparability of elitism between Eton/independent fee-paying schools and Oxbridge.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Calling someone (in this case me ) a "deceitful liar" on a website such as this is inherently cowardly. You wouldn't dare say it to my face, and if you were so unwise to do so would find your own face rearranged in short order.
    You seem to be suggesting that you are a violent person when confronted with the facts; the facts being that you lied and did so to deceitfully smear a person whose views you do not like.

    As it happens, I have no problem in communicating my views of people to their face, so there is no cowardice on my part.

    It is also manifestly hypocritical to call someone cowardly for communicating something offensive over the internet, when you do exactly the same thing in the form of calling somebody a 'pedantic (rhymes with lick)'. All this shows is that you are yourself either cowardly, two-faced, or both.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    But coming to the substance of your criticism it merely reveals your political ignorance. You are correct to point to the number of Oxbridge graduates in the current Shadow Cabinet (how would you put it? oh, yes it is "strictly true") but that doesn't invalidate my point. Which was (is) that Corbyn IS dumbing down the Labour Party, that is his direction of travel.
    Your point was and I quote "With all out problems, can Britain really risk electing a leader too stupid to even get into university with a Shadow Cabinet composed of graduates of second tier universities?". It was never that in analysing the direction of travel, Corbyn is dumbing down the Labour Party, and to suggest so now only confirms that my label of you being a deceitful liar is not only accurate but that it is right for me to continue saying so.

    And your point rested on a claim and I quote "that his support team is almost exclusively red brick, not Oxbridge". This be completely untrue, something you have conceded to. Therefore the whole premise for your point was instantly refuted because of this false claim, and you have still failed to come to terms with this fact (or more likely, refuse to admit so)

    Even if we are now to look at your brand new point that Corbyn is dumbing down the Labour Party by reducing the proportion of Oxbridge graduates, you are faced with two new problems.

    Firstly, this point rests on a claim that the number of Oxbridge graduates in the Cabinet have reduced. However the previous Shadow Cabinet of Ed Milliband held 11 Oxbridge graduates against Corbyn's 10, so there is very little difference in the make up. One must also not overlook that 4 of those Oxbridge Shadow Cabinet members refused to serve under Corbyn rather than him dumbing down it down and forcing them out (these were Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall, Tristram Hunt and Chuka Umunna). In addition one of these Oxbridge Shadow Cabinet members lost his seat at the general election in May (Ed Balls). So again, a total fail on your part.

    Secondly, if reducing the numbers of Oxbridge graduates in the Shadow Cabinet is to lead to dumbing down the Labour Party as you claim, then this means that in order to avoid the charge of dumbing down the Labour Party, each Shadow Cabinet must have an equal or more number of Oxbridge graduates than the previous. Even you would agree that this is a ridiculously stupid condition.

    I think it would be very helpful to yourself if you just;
    1. Admit that the whole premise for you creating this thread was based on a lie and that even without the lie, your standards of assessment of the Shadow Cabinet are ludicrously stupid.
    2. Admit that your sole motivation in creating this thread based on deceitful lies was to smear the character and personality of somebody whose views you do not like.

    This is what I can see, this is what anybody reading this thread can see, and I am sure, this is what you know.


    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    His new Director of Strategy, Seamus Milne let the cat out of the bag in an interview on Russia Today (source the Guido Fawkes website if you want confirmation):

    “… There will be some shake-up in the existing Shadow Cabinet – this is a kind of stabilisation Shadow Cabinet… There are a whole lot of progressive people who came in in the May election, young MPs who are fully supportive of Corbyn. The Tories are planning to bring in new boundaries for constituencies around the country and that will mean there will have to be reselections.”

    So who will the new Shadow Cabinet be? The popular Labour website has been speculating...

    http://labourlist.org/2015/10/are-th...t-of-tomorrow/

    You like doing research so knock yourself out.
    I loathe Seamus Milne

    Rather than jump the gun, you should wait and see what actually happens rather than judge somebody based on speculation and rumour.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    You will find graduates of Bradford, Manchester Met and the University of East London. The rest red brick or worse with one exception.
    I really don't care which university a politician went to. I thought we had established this already and it was something you backpeddled on and agreed. Seems you are backpeddling on your backpeddlings.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    You have displayed a lot of naivety on this thread. If you seriously think, that most of his current Shadow Cabinet think he is anything but a joke or worse, you give yet another instance of it.
    I don't believe that most of his current Shadow Cabinet think he is a joke. Kindly back up your evidence to support your claim that most do.

    You are naive in believing that I will accept any assertion from you that is not backed up by evidence.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Whatever, yawn. I am replying in full to your latest post, am I not?
    You were not previously, and only doing so now because you were shamed into.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    No, it just means that you have made dozens of post solely addressed to me, you parse every single sentence I ever utter, and it would take hours to respond to everything. Life's too short!
    Because almost every sentence you utter is either factually wrong, or based on easily challengeable and simplistic opinion. Hence the need to parse them all.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    First, the word "firstly" is incorrect.

    To your point I didn't trawl through "thousands of posts" (thank God!) the offending post (which you have still not apologised for by the way, why not?) was in the only thread I looked at and it took me about five minutes to find at most. That begs the question of how much offensive stuff there must be in those thousands of posts, if I could find such a dreadful one so quickly.
    Yeah right. Pardon me if I am sceptical to believe what you say based on your record of relying on deceitful lying to construct your position

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    And it was to the point. You accused me of intellectual snobbery (which unlike you I have admitted). I demonstrated you were a snob too. But a worse one.
    As has been explained to you (many times), it is not snobbish to demand high standards of entry into the medical profession.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Don't get your hopes up. I do sometimes toy with the idea of going back and addressing all of your inanities and pointing out things like your extraordinary lack of culture, and logical inconsistencies. (Not knowing that Socrates and Plato were two different people? Really?)
    I would love you to point out my logical inconsistencies. Please do.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    But I have decided that this will be my last response to you on this particular thread. It just takes so long! Of course I reserve the right to change my mind, but that's how I feel right now.
    As you like.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    That isn't for either of us to judge, I leave others who are reading this (if there are any!) to decide that. Obviously if you want to set up your own little judge and jury to convict me of "failing" you can but it won't have any jurisdiction outside your own shower cubicle.
    Failure to defend a position is enough.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    We have both made ad hominems. I admit this, you (because you are intellectually dishonest) of course do not.
    -I have called you a deceitful liar based on your habit of deceitfully lying.
    -I have questioned whether you are either narcissistic or paranoid based on your delusions of my obsession with you
    -I have questioned whether you are hypocritical or dimwitted based on your inconsistency of applying your standards of judgement on Jeremy Corbyn/Labour and Nigel Farage/UKIP

    None of these are therefore ad hominems.

    You called me a "pedantic (rhymes with lick)". The pedantic part is true and evidenced by my posts and style of debating, so is of course not an ad hominem. The rhymes with lick is by every measure an ad hominem. Sorry mate, you fail again.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    My ad hominems come from sheer frustration. You are without doubt the most IRRITATING person I have ever debated with online. (I have dealt with worse in person admittedly)
    I am sure it is very frustrating and irritating for a deceitful liar to have his deceitful lies laid bare. Putting your ad hominem down to this frustration and irritation doesn't stop the fact your use of ad hominems reflects who has won the debate.


    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Don't be ridiculous, there is no "suitable proportion" of Shadow Cabinet members educated at Oxbridge.

    The point that my "rhetorical exaggeration" was de facto if not de jure true was made above. Please refer.
    If there is no suitable proportion of Oxbridge graduates in a Shadow Cabinet, then your only recourse is to say that with each Shadow Cabinet the proportion of Oxbridge graduates must stay the same of increase. Otherwise you have no premise for this thread. And this is even before we get to the issue that the proportion of Oxbridge graduates in the Shadow Cabinet is not substantially changing, thus meaning you have absolutely not leg to stand on in your criticism of Corbyn.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Here you are unwittingly supporting my contention that a good proportion of Oxbridge graduates makes a party a serious party of government (as the Lib Dems were in the Coalition). Unlike the Corbyn Labour Party which has substantially less, it is going to be even fewer after the purge, and most of the current SC don't even support Corbyn.
    You keep on making the same mistakes.

    I don't believe the proportion of Oxbridge graduates in the Shadow Cabinet is relevant.

    You on the other hand do, and so this is about hypothesising your belief into different situations and scenarios.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    I never said UKIP were a serious party of Government. In fact their lack of high calibre Oxbridge graduates is one reason (but not the only one).
    So you will not be voting for them, after all they are not serious party?

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Why you are arguing against your own premises here, I have no idea.
    Because you fail to see that I am hypothesising your premise into situations to show you that it is wrong. You misinterpret my use of your premise as a hypothesis as support of it.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Yes I do, he is in terms of the intellect required to be Prime Minister. I think this because I have read his speeches and heard him debate. I suspect you secretly share my view but can't admit it. (By your lights he is "trash" You certainly agree that he would "severely damage" the country.
    What about his speeches and debates shows he is stupid?

    I actually haven't made up my mind on him on that level. And believing he would "severely damage the country" if in charge does not mean I think he is stupid. I believe Nigel Farage would severely damage the country if in charge, but I actually believe Farage to be a clever man. Clever people make mistakes and believe silly things.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    I don't think the question is valid since the choice isn't available. Politics has always been about individual personalities and "spin" although it wasn't termed that until recently, and an age old practice now has modern techniques.
    It is available if people stopped behaving like yourself.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    You claimed that other democracies "operate" their politics around issues and values, but provided no evidence.
    Germany, Denmark, Netherlands and Austria do not rely on character and personality assassinations as part of their political discourse.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    In principle no. It is how you do it. The Foreign Office should (and does) raise these concerns in private. Public grandstanding, as Corbyn did it, is not only ineffective in persuading the Saudis to change policy, it also imperils British exports. This demonstrated Corbyn's inexperience and unfitness for high office but above all also his stupidity.
    You are basically saying an elected politicians cannot publicly campaign on foreign issues

    You are also greatly overestimating the negative affect of the actions of an opposition politician on diplomacy and greaterly underestimating the positive effect of public mobilisation on the behaviour of officialdom. You are right that the Saudis hate public criticism, but they also hate even more being viewed negatively.

    Based on your highly impartial and tribal style, my feeling is that you would smear him no matter what he does

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Yes
    So what exactly is your opposition to Shaker Aamer receiving compensation?

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    I do. Prime Ministers appoint all Cabinets (not SC's, for Labour's impending changes see above) which is why having someone as poor in judgement as Corbyn would be a disaster.
    My reference to your lack of understanding of how ministerial appointments work was based on your statement that in spite of decades as an MP, Jeremy Corbyn has never had a ministerial position.

    Given ministerial positions are appointed by the Prime Minister and reflect a record of political loyalty and a record of toeing the line, how do you expect Corbyn - an MP on the fringe of the Parliamentary Labour Party with a strong record of rebelling against the whip on matters of political principle - to have had a ministerial appointment (or indeed shadow cabinet appointment) since his time in Westminster?

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    I know your logical fallacies!
    Just goes to show you don't know your logical fallacies.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    I just replied to every single substantive point you made.. If I missed something it was inadvertent, in any case that's your lot.
    Well done. Let's hope you make a habit of it.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    That's it though. I have no doubt you will spend hours crafting a response. Hopefully everyone else will enjoy reading it, I won't bother.
    And there again we have your character laid bare for what it is.
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The only thing career politicians from Oxbridge are capable of doing is avoiding questions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    One last point before I go and enjoy what's left of my Saturday.

    Obviously because you employ the argumentum ad infinitum strategy, you will declare victory and go on (and on!) about me running away ya de ya.

    I leave others to assess the veracity of all that, but of course in that shower cubicle of yours you'll be lathering the old rat bag arm pits and declaring victory because I have decided to call a halt.

    But you have to respond in full to that last post. Every single point addressed as I did you.

    I am not going to read it of course, but that isn't the point. Others on this thread will.

    Go ahead, have the last word. In fact I insist on it.
    Your pretence at magnanimity makes for the usual entertainment you so unwittingly provide.

    You call a halt, not because you know you are totally cornered (you knew that a long time ago), but because you can't take getting ar*e raped any further (a situation you put yourself in).

    From the outset of this thread you created, you have taken a position you cannot defend based on information you now admit are lies. A true gentleman would have admitted this long ago. But then again, what you have revealed about yourself on this thread shows that you are anything but a true gentleman.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Jezza is on the front page of the Sunday Times this morning, providing yet more evidence that he is too stupid to be our next Prime Minister. He just can't help himself!

    In a youtube video from the Morning Star (do they still exist, who knew?) he is filmed saying "I am not sure what there is to commemorate about the First World War."

    Next week he will have to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph in the annual commemoration ceremony, because that is what Leaders of the Opposition do.

    The Tories are being soft on Corby because they want him to remain in post but their red top friends will go to town on this when the time is right.

    If you wanted to find an issue that resonates more with the public at the level of the gut, it would be harder to think of one than this. WW1 is a national wound that is still not fully healed to this day. Our grandfathers and great great grandfathers fought and died by the millions, whole streets being decimated in single days, and there is STILL a visceral need by many to honour them. He will cause great offence and disgust when these words are publicised widely, which they will be, fear not of that.

    The narrative is (and will be till he is defeated) that Corbyn is unpatriotic. Comments like this are a gift. When you see the next opinion poll with Labour plunging still further think back to statements like this for the reason why..

    He may sincerely think this, no doubt he does. But you don't express such sentiments publicly if you ever want the party you represent to become the Government of the nation. There is nothing to gain, everything to lose.

    Saying such a thing about an issue so emotive in our political culture was unbelievably, incredibly, unimaginably stupid. But then that is Corbyn, thick as two short planks.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Jezza is on the front page of the Sunday Times this morning, providing yet more evidence that he is too stupid to be our next Prime Minister. He just can't help himself!

    In a youtube video from the Morning Star (do they still exist, who knew?) he is filmed saying "I am not sure what there is to commemorate about the First World War."

    Next week he will have to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph in the annual commemoration ceremony, because that is what Leaders of the Opposition do.

    The Tories are being soft on Corby because they want him to remain in post but their red top friends will go to town on this when the time is right.

    If you wanted to find an issue that resonates more with the public at the level of the gut, it would be harder to think of one than this. WW1 is a national wound that is still not fully healed to this day. Our grandfathers and great great grandfathers fought and died by the millions, whole streets being decimated in single days, and there is STILL a visceral need by many to honour them. He will cause great offence and disgust when these words are publicised widely, which they will be, fear not of that.

    The narrative is (and will be till he is defeated) that Corbyn is unpatriotic. Comments like this are a gift. When you see the next opinion poll with Labour plunging still further think back to statements like this for the reason why..

    He may sincerely think this, no doubt he does. But you don't express such sentiments publicly if you ever want the party you represent to become the Government of the nation. There is nothing to gain, everything to lose.

    Saying such a thing about an issue so emotive in our political culture was unbelievably, incredibly, unimaginably stupid. But then that is Corbyn, thick as two short planks.
    Glad you enjoyed reading my posts. Oh yeah, of course you "didn't read them", that's why you post a completely new topic on this thread, when it warranted the creation of a new thread. You just can't seem to keep yourself away from this thread.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 4, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.